Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Siyar an-Nubala' started by AbdalQadir, Dec 1, 2011.
so, where did al-ghazali say yazid rehmatullah?
The zaydi shiites are well known for their anti-sufi stances.
it is not that i do not have an answer. and your quote was NOT ibn hajar's opinion as anybody can see. if i tackle it, you will just pull out another malformed quote from some rafidi or a wahabi, or a false attribution or simply change the topic and move on. people with shame do not behave like that, you know.
therefore, i insist on holding you accountable by forcing you to be open and commit to a stand. but, as soon as i ask you questions so that you cannot slither away - you have loads of work to do and you won't be available until next week and so forth.
even if you jeer and sneer, i am still not going to engage with you, inShaAllah. if you want an answer write a paper and publish it on the web - it costs you nothing, by the way.
the second answer is: laatoN ke bhoot baatoN se nahiN mantey, the old urdu cliche. there is no point in being academic with you, because you have demonstrated that you cannot even read. giving references is weighty for you unless we ask - and then you act as if you have done us a great favour by copying references from some forum or article. we cannot waste time with cut-n-paste champions.
you will be accountable for your lies and slanders in front of Allah ta'ala.
that is your perception. I do not cause mischief, my brother. It is just that I don't agree with some of your opinions. I think, perhaps, you find it difficult that ahlesunnat is a conglomeration of opinions on many matters. there is no black&white. for example, you may follow imam al-ghazali and say yazid rehmatullah but we follow others and say yazid la'natullah.
I think, the reason you have changed your tone now from being all academic to warnings is because i gave your a reference you asked about and that now you do not have an answer so it has become mischief.
Alhamdulillah. All praises belong to the Almighty. And Greetings of Peace are for our Master who is ever anxious for His ummah. The trust that i have learnt to place (the hard way) in the lovers of Alahadhrat (A'laihirrahmah wa ridhwan) once again stands vindicated! Knowledge is still around so qiyamah may not be as imminent as we might think. May the Shaykh drink from the Blessed Pond of our Master(may He be whelmed in Peace). Ameen.
all you and your buddies do here is cause mischief - and waste everybody's time. this time it is final.
Well, the whole point of the argument was to point out that some ulama of ahl al-sunna also made takfir of al-shaykh al-akbar. you have avoided the big question for the reason we know.
however, for ibn hajar al-asqalani, when i can i will return with the story of his mubahala with the lovers al-shaykh al-akbar as reported by imam sakhawi. for now, here is what al-asqalani says about the opinion of his shaykh about al-shaykh al-akbar in his lisan al-mizan:
وقد كنت سألت شيخنا الإمام سراح الدين البلقيني عن بن العربي فبادر الجواب بأنه كافر
" I asked our shaykh al-imam al-balqini about Ibn Arabi and he immediately replied: He is a Kafir"
read under 902.
lol, you will find this shinqiti character blasted all across major wahabi forums and blogs and apparently he has even written against Imam Abul Hasan Ash3ari and his creed (but then who hasn't? ).
so gg and af are half shinqitiites and and half muqbiliites?
and may Allah reward you, sayyidi abu Hasan for your posts here.
i thought i'd quickly mention that al-muqbili's background was Zaydi (tafdilism), and he does not make 'adaalah of all the sahabah amongst other things. . .
it takes a genius to recognize this. well done einstein.
no, that was not the point. go back and check the thread.
which is a hunt and peck method. we will name it the chicken-pecker: those who keep pecking everywhere and will happily cite wahabis and rafidis if it suits their position.
what is the difference between you and the people who forward mails that a crocodile-human or giant skeleton was found by aramco staff?
and why do you choose to cite a thoroughly disreputable source to prove a point? it indicates insecurity.
i said it before, but again for the record: the analysis was to prove gg was wrong in his claim that imam suyuti changed his position. there is no evidence for that, except for a forgery. [which he could have easily found out, if he read books, but cut-n-paste does not afford that luxury.]
MY main argument was that you made claims about suyuti (even if you were misled by a citation, you are still culpable for saying it) which were patently false.
i rest my case.
sub'HanAllah. you have not proved that imam suyuti held a different position, but unperturbed proceed to manipulate that faux pas.
as usual, you post with authority, but when your ignorance is exposed, you either turn away or change the argument to something else or start a new topic. you are simply incapable research and all you do is mindless cut-n-paste. you are a time waster and nothing else.
my analysis was not that he could have changed his position. my analysis was that you have no clue of suyuti or his books or his positions. you just cut and paste - like the newbies who have discovered the internet and keep forwarding spam as authentic knowledge.
you have a new title: spammer.
if you are back from your hiatus, can we continue where we left off? we can continue our previous discussion if you wish (and you can also give me the list that i have not answered).
i thought you could make it out from my style of citation.
aF will get offended if i ask whether you have read any of these books yourself and reproach me for being condescending; therefore i will not ask you this. of course, i could gently point out that you did not give the reference for itmam - whether it was your own research or whether you copied it from somewhere, but you will get offended that i keep pestering you to give references.
but you did give one:
this seems to be some madcap wahabi who also rants against tawassul and even includes the hadith of tirmidhi (the blind man) as a 'weak or forged one', he cites and albani for his proofs and is one of the most childish books i have seen. [thanks to gg, i hadn't seen it before. i googled it, downloaded it and read major portions from it.] this shanqiti fellow has listed the following 53 ulama as having done takfir of ibn arabi. even a quick glance is enough for a student of islam to see the fraud.
but if all one has to do is copy and paste, it does not much work anyway. certainly, it is embarrassing when such an error is pointed out, but as long as nobody bothers, one can confidently strut as a mega-researcher. google-cut-paste. of course, i do not talk about gg - aF has so nicely asked me to not be condescending.
should i ask where did he get the proof that ibn Hajar made takfir of ibn arabi? if you point me back to shanqiti's references, it will only indicate that you cannot read. shanqiti points it to al-ilm al-shamikh of salih al-muqbili (d.1108 AH).
this salih muqbili does not spare any sufi he wishes to disparage; from al-ghazali, to shaykh abdu'l qadir (which even ibn taymiyah did not) to ibn `aTayillah to subki to zarruq. he attacks mawlid, tawassul and displays every other salafi trait (he claims to be free of taqlid of anyone) including denigrating and ridiculing famous ulama.
i used to think that shanqiti's book was terrible, until i saw this ghastly-hideous-loathsome garbage. ismayil dihlawi's 'tafwiyatu'l iman' sounds mild compared to this nasty devilish tract - and eerily similar. [i didn't read the whole book, but just the part where he belches his hate against the sufis - and insults ghawth al-a'azam].
so it is clear that you two brothers do not disagree about the ulama of ahl al-sunna also did takfir al-shaykh al-akbar. that was the point.
secondly, I clearly gave a source where i read it from and he quotes each with a reference. there are about 50+ ulama who have been quoted by al-shinqiti [though I do not agree with his thesis] at number 53 is al-suyuti. I read it from there and quoted it as such. the fact is that there are ahl al-sunna ulama that have done takfir al-shaykh al-akbar.
it seems plausible that aH's analysis are correct with regards to al-suyuti's position. his earlier position was different to his later position. having said that it doesnt affect the main argument that takfir of Ibn 'Arabi was done by sunnis!
as for shaykh sirhindi's reference, then start a thread on it and i will give you the reference and link. Ya Hussayn!
Ghulam e ghaus sahab,this is what you wrote
The emphasis[on Imam Suyuti Rh]by using the bold font was done by me to shown my point of disagreement regarding Imam Suyuti (Rh).
So, now please don't change the topic and say that " a number of ulama did takfir of shaykh al -akbar". Because my concern was only with Imam Suyuti Rh.
Later you said
I have a pdf copy of the itmam al diraya . I spent 1 hour looking for that quote and could not find.
So, if you have that reference from itmam, please provide the name of the chapter under which it can be found. [ There are 14 chapters]
To the best of my knowledge no such reference is present in itmam al diraya. I accept and agree that I might be missing something . So please provide the reference if you have.
Also, I am still waiting for your reference for Imam Ahmed Sirhindi's (rh) quote.
this took me less than 15 minutes to find out, wa'l Hamdu lillah:
in his autobiography at-taHadduth bi niymatillah, he lists a few things that can sort out the issue mentioned here by gg:
imam suyuti was born in 849 AH.
he completed al-taHbir in 872 AH, as he mentions himself in al-itqan. he was 23.
itmam al-dirayah was written after al-taHbir, but prior to 874 AH. this is because al-taHbir is mentioned in itmam al-dirayah. and in his at-taHadduth, he mentions that his (suyuTi's) father's friend took some of his books to the levant and turkey - and mentions 'sharh an-nuqayah' among these.
in the same notice, he mentions al-itqan. which indicates that al-itqan was either partially written or completed prior to 874. [my comment below of a signed copy of 883 AH is the ijazah he has given to his student for the book in that year; indicating that it was written prior to 883 AH]
now, at-taHadduth was written in 896 AH as he himself attests ("now we are in the year 896...") [p.]
but still, in the same book he reaffirms his book 'tanbih al-ghabi' without any signs of having "changed his mind".
he mentions a number of issues he has a conflict with al-jawjari and among them is:
the sixteenth issue: that of ibn arabi. i have already written "tanbih al-ghabi bi tabriyati ibn arabi." and there are some other issues upon which nothing was written. whosoever wishes to investigate the truth of the matter and determine who is right and who has committed a mistake; who is with truth and who is falsehood, let them read these books [mentioned above] and see what i have written and explained from my research. all of these are included in [the volume of collected works titled] "fatawi" [p.143]
that is the book tanbih al-ghabi is included in al-Hawi li'l fatawi.
end result: as of 896 AH - at the age of 47, he had not changed his mind. both al-taHbir and sharh nuqayah are prior to his 25th year.
therefore, if there is any other proof that imam suyuti changed his mind, please present it. [i hope abu faDl does not find this condescending].
but that is not all. imam suyuTi specifically in his itmam al-dirayah mentions that the order of fadilah is abu bakr, umar, uthman and ali. raDiyallahu anhum. and cites the hadith of bukhari which hasanayn shah tried to fault imam aHmed riDa for his using it for ijma'.
and Tabarani's comment: "this indicates that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam did not criticize this order in his lifetime". hasanayn shah also quotes Tabarani if i remember well.
wAllahu ta'ala a'alam.
I don't understand. Are you saying that a number of ulama of ahl a-sunna did not do the takfir of hazrat al-shaykh al-akbar or are you saying that just al-suyuti did not do the takfir?
the point of it was to say that just like al-ghazali decalred al-shaykh al-Rais as kafir, similarly, there were also ulama of ahl al-sunna who declared Ibn Arabi as kafir.
the most esteemed and honourable, abu faDl has chastisted illuminated and beared upon us, on our noticeable indiscretion and the ignoble lack of complaisance and the vim to impugn, when we descry the hauteur of those whom he applauds, as it is not countenanced by him. and indeed, abu fadl is an honourable man.
indeed, you might have read the books from cover to cover - it is not for people like us to dare question your erudition - prithee, forgive my impertinence for voicing an infelicitous query:
1) is this your own research, or are you citing someone without verifying it? if so, from who and where?
2) where in itmam al-dirayah li qurra' an-nuqayah does al-suyuti mention shaykh ibn arabi? [as you say forcefully, can you please cite the passage or even give me a reference so that i can quickly look it up myself. it is a small book anyway.]
3) 'changed his mind' is a vague phrase. changed his mind to what? did he do takfir of ibn arabi? [which was the original contention btw - because SS disputed it]
concerning at-taHbir, the printed version, edited and annotated by dr.fathi abdu'l qadir farid. in the preface of the book, the editor mentions that he relies upon two manuscripts for this edition:
dar al-kutub al-misriyah MS (tagged as alif)
king sa'ud university MS (tagged as baa)
the editor notes that he relies mostly on the king saud manuscript because of its superior script (to that of the egyptian MS) even though it is a later MS and the egyptian MS is the older one.
there is a statement attributed to suyuti that: "ibn arabi was a heretic, and the book fusus is attributed to him, all of which is kufr." concerning this statement, dr.fathi says in the footnote:"in the margins of the dar al-kutub al-miSriyah manuscript it is written that: 'this is an adduced statement spuriously attributed to the author'.
at-taHbir was completed in 872 AH as attested by suyuTi himself. the commonly found copy of al-itqan was signed by suyuTi himself in 883 AH.
yet, we don't find such statements in al-itqan which was according to the author "expanding upon al-taHbir".
even if the quote in at-taHbir is true, then it is one of his early works. because, imam suyuti was born in 849 AH, and when at-taHbir was completed in 872 AH, he was merely 23 years old and almost 40 years before his passing in 911 AH. raHimahullah wa raDiya `anhu. [it is actually 39 years].
if such a quote is present in itmam al-dirayah, it remains to be seen if we can determine the chronology of itmam and tanbih al-ghabi.
This may answer:
And one short article by Shaykh Foudah attached with post#6.
The wahabi-way of relying on personal research, even if using translated works, without bothering about the technical import of terms has several pitfalls:
suyuti did defend al-shaykh al-akbar in an earlier work but later he changed his mind in his: al-tajbir fi ilm al-tafsir and forcefully in his itmam al-diraya sharah niqaya.